>

Pacific Health Center | Natural Healing with Online ZYTO Testing

Natural Screening and Health Balancing Program

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

A Skeptical Look at Stephen Barrett, MD and “Quackwatch”

Wednesday, August 27th, 2014

This article is written in response to “A Skeptical Look at Monte Kline and Pacific Health Center” by Stephen Barrett, MD on the quackwatch.org website.  Recognizing that many people read things on the internet falsely assuming truth and accuracy, it is necessary to give the other side of the story, or as the Bible says:

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.  (Proverbs 18:17)

Let me state from the outset that I have corresponded a number of times with Dr. Barrett regarding false or misleading statements on his website, and he has contacted me on one occasion when I inadvertently published a false statement about him on my website.  He has corrected several incorrect statements of fact on quackwatch.org at my request.  Though we embrace diametrically opposing views on many health care issues, we have a cordial, mostly respectful relationship.

I do not believe, as some in the natural health field do, that Dr. Barrett is part of some grand conspiracy funded by the conventional medical and drug establishment to eliminate natural medicine approaches.  Though I’m sure the conventional medical and drug establishment appreciates and applauds Dr. Barrett’s work, there is really no evidence to that effect, plus the fact that Dr. Barrett denies any such connection or funding.  Until I see any evidence to the contrary, I will take him at his word.

It is also my contention that Dr. Barrett has done significant damage to the reputation and business of many natural medicine practitioners, including myself.  I know of at least two instances recently where a potential client (or relatives of a potential client) read his article on me and cancelled their appointments without checking out the other side of the story.  We seem to have gone from an earlier generation that embraced Will Rogers’ attitude of, “All I know is what I read in the papers” to “All I know is what I read on the internet.”  For better or worse, anyone can say just about anything on the internet without challenge or consequences.  Dr. Barrett has every right to express his opinion on various health care practices, as do I.  I believe in free speech, as long as it is accurate and can be appropriately challenged.

Ultimately I believe that Stephen Barrett and I (as well as most natural health care practitioners) view health practice from very different paradigms, as well as different backgrounds and education.   I further believe it’s instructive to explore these differences, which I will attempt to do herein.

 

WHAT BARRETT DOES NOT SAY ABOUT THE PACIFIC HEALTH CENTER CASE           

At the outset, let me give a quick summary of the State of Washington vs. Monte Kline and Pacific Health Center case which Dr. Barrett’s article focuses on.  One should understand that certain facts may be stated, while omitting other facts, resulting in misleading.  I maintain that the article “A Skeptical Look at Monte Kline and Pacific Health Center” does exactly that.

By selectively reporting and taking some things out of context, the impression is given that Pacific Health Center and I are somehow fraudulent and guilty of that loaded word “quackery.”  Thus the whole truth is “spun,” rather than truly presented in an objective, “no axes to grind,” manner.

I was targeted by the Washington Attorney General in 2002, even though on two previous occasions they decided not to start a case against me, for lack of evidence.  The motivation was a brief case with the Oregon Attorney General who maintained we were violating the Consumer Protection Act with doing our nutritional testing and program.  That case was started in response to a complaint by a competing health practitioner, a retired osteopath, who heard a radio ad for my clinic.  None of our clients complained.  The case began with a supposedly informal, but under oath, interview with a former nurse turned Assistant Attorney General named David Hart.   It was clear from the outset that Hart’s mind was made up from the beginning, as he stated to my attorney, “My mission is to stop all electrodermal testing.”  My tax dollars at work.

In spite of his various threats and accusations to me and my staff, Hart folded his case a couple months later and began to sue for peace.  The real motivation was then exposed, as he demanded a $15,000 “shakedown” to drop the case.  I paid that, unfortunately, rather than continue to trial.  The Stipulated Judgment agreement noted that neither party acknowledged any fault, but that didn’t stop them from portraying the case in the media as if I had done something wrong.

It also didn’t stop the Oregon AG from inciting the Washington AG to attempt their own shakedown for my practice in that state.  These bureaucrat lawyers largely follow the same perverted philosophy that lawyers in general do:  Shake you down for less money than what it would cost to fight the case.  Originally the Washington AG wanted over $150,000 for their “investigation costs.”  Having already been shaken down in Oregon, I was committed to not playing that game again.  They didn’t count on being forced to continue prosecuting the case, prompting some rebukes from their supervisors at the Attorney General’s office.

A sympathetic trial court judge granted summary judgment to the state early in the case, after which I petitioned the Court of Appeals.  They ultimately ruled in my favor, finding that Pacific Health Center did not violate the Consumer Protection Act.  The statute called for the loser to pay attorney fees, so the State of Washington ultimately paid me $231,000 in attorney fees – unfortunately only about half of what we spent.

As Dr. Barrett points out, the state also charged me with unlicensed practice of acupuncture, naturopathy, and medicine.  The Court of Appeals did not reverse those findings, which meant I was forced to discontinue my practice there.  What Dr. Barrett did not say in his article was that the “unlicensed practice” charges were added on later in the case, once the AG apparently concluded they might lose on the charge of violating the Consumer Protection Act.

The unlicensed practice of acupuncture was based on the fact that Electrodermal Screening takes galvanic measurements on acupuncture points.  However, no acupuncture is involved – no needles, no skin penetration.  Likewise, half of the electroacupuncture points are not part of traditional acupuncture, minimizing the connection and similarity.

The unlicensed practice of naturopathy was based primarily on our usage of homeopathic remedies with clients.  While the naturopathy statute says the homeopathy is included in the practice of naturopathy, it does not say it is the exclusive province of naturopaths.  Again, this was a bogus charge.

The unlicensed practice of medicine is more interesting.  Most states have largely identical language on what the practice of medicine consists of.  In Washington practice of medicine is defined this way:

 Offers or undertakes to diagnose, cure, advise, or prescribe for any human disease, ailment, injury, infirmity, deformity, pain or other condition, physical or mental, real or imaginary, by any means or instrumentality. (RCW 18.71.011)

These statutes are so broadly written that virtually everyone over the age of 12 is guilty of “practicing medicine without a license.”  Anyone who has ever “advised” someone on a health problem, told someone to take an aspirin or a vitamin, sold a product in a health food store, etc. is guilty.   “By any means or instrumentality” – you’ve got to be kidding!  Because of the idiotic broadness of the statute, it can be used selectively for whichever “enemy of the state” that makes waves against the establishment.  Given the weakness of trying to win a consumer protection case against the only practitioner in the state offering a money-back guarantee, especially without any consumer complaints, the “unlicensed practice” case was their ace in the hole.

 

WHO IS STEPHEN BARRETT?

             Stephen Barrett, MD is a retired psychiatrist, formerly of Allentown, PA now living in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  According to Wikipedia, Barrett, who is in his early 80’s, is a 1957 graduate of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and completed his psychiatry residency in 1961.  He retired from active practice in 1993.  His medical license is listed as “Active-Retired” in good standing with no disciplinary actions found for his license.  I make this notation since some opponents of Dr. Barrett have falsely maintained that he had been “de-licensed” or lost his license to practice.

Barrett is the co-founder, vice-president and a board member of the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF), another organization that has vehemently attacks alternative medicine practices and practitioners, that was dissolved in 2011.

On a personal level, though Dr. Barrett and I have opposing views on appropriate health care, I have found him cordial and a rather interesting person who I somewhat enjoy interacting with.  In other circumstances we might be good friends.  I add this comment simply because Dr. Barrett has been called every name in the book by various people on the alternative medicine side.  I reject ad hominem attacks and wish others on “my side” would do the same.

I believe he is someone passionate about his point-of-view, just as am I about my opposing point-of-view.  Even though I disagree with the object and perspective of his zeal, I do admire it.  Having said that, I also believe, based on his writings on quackwatch.org, that his desire would be to eliminate nearly all current non-conventional medicine approaches if he could.  By contrast, nearly all natural medicine practitioners, including myself, are not trying to destroy conventional medicine or conventional medicine practitioners, which we believe is necessary in certain situations.

A number of internet sites have responded to Dr. Barrett’s attacks on various alternative medicine practices and practitioners, as well as several defamation lawsuits he has been involved in.  I don’t necessarily endorse everything these authors have stated, but list them as references for the reader to consider in evaluating the credibility of Dr. Barrett’s remarks.  I refer to these simply to show the widespread condemnation of Dr. Barrett and quackwatch.org among the natural healing community:

http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/doctors-data-sues-quackwatch/

http://www.naturalnews.com/041832_quackwatch_stephen_barrett_defamation_lawsuit.html#

http://www.anh-europe.org/news/quackbuster-stephen-barrett-md-loses-appeal-and-leaves-home-town

http://www.americanchiropractic.net/chiropractic/Quack%20Buster%20busted%20-%20Dr%20S%20Barrett.pdf

http://www.drday.com/rumors/stephen_barrett_comments.htm

 

A CONFLICT OF PARADIGMS

Dr. Barrett operates from a paradigm, and I operate from a very different paradigm.  That set of assumptions one makes, that lens through which one views the world, determines how we see “facts” and how we interpret reality.  Based on his writings, I see Stephen Barrett’s paradigm embracing these elements:

  • Health truths must be substantiated by scientific studies – what is commonly called “evidence-based medicine.”  The Wikipedia article on Barrett notes:

 

When he was asked: “What inspired you to take up science?” he replied that his appreciation of         medical science:  probably began when I took a college course in medical statistics, and learned what     makes the difference between scientific thought and poor reasoning. Medical school brought             me in    touch with the rapid and amazing strides being made in the understanding and treatment of disease.           My anti-quackery activities have intensified my interest and concern in distinguishing science from    pseudoscience, quackery and fraud.(Barrett, Stephen. “What Inspired You? — Survey responses – Dr     Stephen Barrett”. Spiked-Online. Retrieved July 23, 2007.)

 

The long legal inquisition the State of Washington conducted against me was based on a simple legal theory, namely that if I did not have “randomized, controlled, double-blind, etc.” studies validating what I did with Electrodermal Screening, it was not true and I was violating the Consumer Protection Act.  It didn’t matter to them that they had no complaints from consumers; rather it was all about this novel legal theory.

Had the Washington Attorney General prevailed, it would have been “open season” on practically every natural healthcare professional, since they usually would not be able to cite such studies.  There are two “dirty little secrets” regarding this:

 

1. Conventional medicine doesn’t meet that test.  The Office of Technology Assessment of the U. S. Congress during the Clinton administration made the statement that:

 80% of all conventional medical therapies have no scientific basis 

In other words, all the hypocrites are not in the church!  What I call the “health fascists” in government regulatory agencies, as well as people like Dr. Barrett, attempt to foist a standard on natural medicine that conventional medicine doesn’t meet.  In a related quote from the Former Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Hans Inglefinger, MD, describing conventional medical treatment, he stated:

10% of it is clearly beneficial

10% of it is clearly disastrous

80% of it is inappropriate for the patient’s actual condition

 

2. We had expert witnesses in our case who testified that the randomized, double-blind study was totally inappropriate for evaluating a testing method.  Rather, outcome-based studies or comparative studies would be more accurate.  (Incidentally, we provided a medical journal comparative study to our inquisitors showing that Electrodermal Screening correlated  about 80% with the best conventional food allergy testing methods.  They, of course, dismissed the study, since it didn’t fit their narrative.) The randomized, double-blind study is appropriate for evaluating a new drug, but it’s pretty much impossible for it to render an accurate judgment of a testing technique.

 

  • Conventional medicine is authoritative and dependable

 Dr. Barrett was educated and trained in conventional medicine.  He accepts it as truth with little question.   Unfortunately the current model of so-called “education” might better be described as “indoctrination,” given it is essentially, as one of my professors noted, “the transfer the bones from one graveyard to another.”  There’s a great difference between memorizing and parroting back answers with actually learning how to think, evaluate, and draw one’s own conclusions.  I’ll discuss this more under my “Education” section.

 

  • Natural, alternative, non-drug healthcare is usually false and should be viewed with great skepticism.

 

  • The government should suppress non-orthodox healthcare practices

 

Dr. Barrett likes the fact that state attorneys general, health departments, the Federal Trade Commission, the federal Food & Drug Administration, etc. wield significant police power against practitioners like me.  All of these bureaucrats basically believe that they’re really smart (even though they seldom if ever have any personal experience with the practices or practitioners they attack) and that the general public is really stupid and therefore must be paternalistically protected.

 

My health paradigm is considerably different:

 

  • I begin with a theological, rather than a medical foundation.

 

I didn’t decide as a teenager that I wanted to be a health practitioner and go to college toward that end.  I started out in Christian ministry, but through a health crisis in my own life – testicular cancer at age 24 – I became interested in natural healing methods.  Many natural health care practitioners similarly have moved from conventional to alternative medicine motivated by their own health crises.  Natural medicine approaches, under the direction of holistic M.D.’s saved my life (including one that Dr. Barrett labels a “non-recommended source of health advice”).  I was my own personal “outcome study,” and no so-called randomized, double-blind study would make any difference to me.  Knowledge is learned, but truth is discovered.

I began researching and writing about natural healing methods, plus teaching seminars, before I went into clinical practice to actually implement the healing methods I had been teaching.  Understand that when I say I come from a “theological foundation,” I don’t mean merely that I have a bunch of Bible verses related to how to deal with health problems.  Most of my theological perspective comes from observing (and hopefully cooperating with) God’s creation and deriving principles of healing from that, as reflected in my various books.  Likewise, it means that I look at health problems as not merely physical, but as body, mind and spirit issues, following that biblical model (as in I Thessalonians 5:23).

While a significant percentage of natural health care practitioners are either Christian or at least theistically-oriented, conventional medicine practitioners are disproportionately atheistic or agnostic.  Conventional medicine is based on an evolutionary humanistic philosophy that is in direct conflict with the biblical view of man.  This isn’t a new problem, however.  Nineteenth-century author, George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans – author of Silas Marner) wrote:

 

. . . it is seldom a medical man has true religious views – there is too much pride   of intellect.   (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/quotations/quote/29226)

 

  • I keep an open mind about different health approaches.

 

I refrain from being immediately dismissive of health approaches that are foreign to me and of which I would tend to be skeptical.  There are a lot of things done in natural medicine that I don’t necessarily agree with and wouldn’t use myself.  But I also realize that of all the truth in the universe, 99.9999999999999+% is unknown to me.  I get daily reminders of how little I know and how limited my perspective is.  Humility is one of the advantages of my non-traditional education.

I would say to Stephen Barrett (and any other opponent of natural healing methods such as I do) along with Shakespeare:

 

            There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your     philosophy.   (Hamlet)

 

  • I am pragmatic about health care – I am impressed by results, not studies

 

            In my 31 years of practice, many clients have related approaches they were doing that I wouldn’t necessarily endorse, but they were getting results.  I have learned to never argue with success, but rather to learn from it.

 

  • I believe in health freedom of choice

 

As referred to earlier, I believe that, provided there is full disclosure, the government has no business restricting choice in health care methods or practitioners.  People aren’t stupid.  They won’t continue to do something that doesn’t produce results.

To my knowledge, I was the only health practitioner of any kind in the State of Washington offering a “Results Guarantee” – viz. “If you follow your diet and supplement program for one month and do not improve on any of your symptoms, you can get a refund of any testing fees paid.”  Though that guarantee was the ultimate of “consumer protection,” (for which they should have given me an award) the health fascists in the Attorney General’s and Health Department offices, were obsessed with destroying my practice.  To the objective observer, that should seem rather odd, to say the least!

America, or at least the America my ancestors first came to in 1634, is about freedom from tyrannical government.  On many different levels the fascism of an ever-growing, out-of-control government is at odds with individual liberty.  The only medical doctor to sign the Declaration of Independence, Dr. Benjamin Rush, the Surgeon General of the Continental Army, shared my concern, writing:

 The Constitution of the Republic should make special provision for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom.  To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of medical science.  All such laws are un-American and despotic.  They are fragments of monarchy and have no place in a republic.

 

LICENSURE – THE BIGGEST HEALTHCARE FRAUD

I was attacked, among other things, for not being “licensed” as a healthcare provider.  The truth is that many occupations, including many healthcare occupations, are not licensed in most states.  For example, in Seattle I discovered over 50 different types of unlicensed practitioners.  The state can claim an interest in licensing professions that have the potential of danger to the public, such as physicians, but it generally doesn’t see most professions that way.

Most people labor under the delusion that licensure of healthcare providers protects the public.  The real purpose of medical licensure was identified by Nobel Prize winning economist, Milton Friedman in his book Capitalism and Freedom, namely, to create monopolies.  I highly recommend reading this chapter at the following link:  http://books.cat-v.org/economics/capitalism-and-freedom/chapter_09

Licensure simply means that the practitioner was suitably indoctrinated at a government-approved school, and passed the appropriate government-approved tests perhaps decades earlier.  It doesn’t mean the practitioner is smart, wise, creative, and compassionate, has an ability to listen, is up-to-date, or many other qualities that are essential to healing.  The free market will always make better decisions than government bureaucrats.

 

EDUCATIONAL ACCREDITATION

Dr. Barrett also suggests in his article that I am not properly educated because I have a Ph.D. from a non-traditional, non-accredited institution.  The current view of education focuses on what school you went to, what degree you have, etc. – none of which really has anything to do with the key fact – do you know anything useful?

Historically, education was measured with two criteria:

(1) What do you know?

(2) Who did you study under?

 

I demonstrated to Columbia Pacific University that I knew a lot of things about wholistic health, largely from my 430 page, fully documented book on the subject – several times the length of the average Ph.D. thesis – which over 100,000 people read.  My second book, which over 300,000 people read on a simple method to improve the quality of one’s diet, was also part of my Independent Study Project for my degree, plus other original writings.

As I began my health practice, and up to the present day, I have studied under some of the best known practitioners in natural medicine — many with world-wide reputations.  I have learned primarily through mentoring and doing.  Think about it:  When you employ an auto mechanic, a carpenter, a plumber, or an electrician, do you really care about what school he went to (probably none), or what kind of a certification he has on the wall?  Or do you just want to know he’s experienced, his work is guaranteed, and his previous customers endorse him?  I think the latter.  That’s the model I have followed for over 30 years of practice.

Back in the 1950’s the President of, I believe, U. S. Steel was bemoaning the increasing number of “educated idiots” coming out of colleges.  One of my professors referred to many of his seminary students as “highly qualified to be utterly useless.”  Or as Bernard Shaw said, “Those who can do; those who can’t teach; and those who can’t teach, teach teachers.”

 

WILL THE REAL “QUACK” PLEASE STAND UP?

Stephen Barrett fights against what he calls “quackery” on his quackwatch.org and related websites.  But is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black?  What is the true definition of quackery?

First of all, the term “quack” has nothing to do with ducks!  Much of the origin of “quackery” can be traced to a 16th century German physician, alchemist, astrologer, and occultist named Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, who called himself Paracelsus (meaning “above Celsus”).  Among other ideas he theorized that the body was composed of salt, sulfur and mercury.  He gave his patients the same chemicals he used as an alchemist – opium, mercury, lead, copper, arsenic, and sulfur.  He was ousted from his hometown of Basel on charges of what today would be similar to practicing medicine without a license.

Paracelsus’ cures didn’t work very well on himself, given he died at the young age of 51.  But he did live long enough to burn the books of Galen and Hippocrates and made a lasting impact on the direction of medicine.  After his death doctors began giving chemicals to treat disease, abandoning the historic herbs, roots, and barks.

One of his “remedies” was mercury, or quicksilver – the second most toxic element on the Periodic Table.  The slang of the day referred to quicksilver as quack salber.  These new “toxic chemical” doctors then began to be referred to as quacks because they gave patients quack salber, that is, mercury.  It is an incredible historical irony that, beginning in the nineteenth-century doctors using the historic natural herbs and other non-toxic remedies began to have the term “quack” applied to them.

Therefore, the true definition of a quack is a doctor whose remedies are toxic chemicals.  Based on that historic definition, Dr. Barrett’s previous profession in drug-oriented psychiatry is quackery, as is the practice of most conventional medical doctors today.  Perhaps the only thing needed for a true “quackwatch” is a mirror!

 

CONVENTIONAL MEDICINE:   THE REAL DANGEOUS DOCTORS

Dr. Barrett and quackwatch.org present natural, alternative healthcare as dangerous to the health of the unsuspecting.  But who is the real danger – who is actually killing people – natural medicine or conventional medicine?

Many studies have been done on iatrogenic (i. e. “doctor-caused) disease.  The one I will cite to make my point is by Barbara Starfield, M.D. of Johns Hopkins in the July 26, 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (pp 483-485).  Dr. Starfield reported the following annual deaths from conventional medical treatment in the United States:

 

Unnecessary surgery                                      17,000 deaths

Medication errors in hospitals                       7,000 deaths

Other hospital errors                                      20,000 deaths

Hospital acquired infections                         80,000 deaths

Adverse reactions to medications                106,000 deaths

 

TOTAL                                                          225,000 deaths/year

 

Dr. Starfield then states:

 . . . 225,000 deaths constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer.

 

It is clear, from this and many other even more dramatic studies, that conventional medicine, as the third leading cause of death in America, is inherently dangerous.  Natural medicine poses only minuscule risk.  For example, death by vitamin overdose is in the neighborhood of 0-3 deaths per year in America, the result of people doing extreme overdosing on their own, not following a practitioner’s advice.

 

SEMMELWEISS VS. STEPHEN BARRETT

 The activities and approach of Dr. Stephen Barrett remind me of the persecution of nineteenth-century Austrian physician, Ignaz Semmelweiss, who was a hospital director in Vienna.  At that the time mortality rate for women delivering babies in his hospital was as high as 75%, as a result of puerperal fever.  Dr. Semmelweiss observed that his student doctors went right from handling cadavers in the autopsy room to delivering babies . . . without washing their hands.

In 1848 he took the “radical” step of requiring one simple procedure for his doctors – they had to wash their hands before delivering babies.  The mortality rate of the mothers delivering immediately went down by a factor of 15!  Was Semmelweiss recognized and applauded for his common sense?  Hardly.  He was dismissed and ostracized by his colleagues, who were offended at the mere suggestion that doctors could be carriers of death.  The rejection ultimately drove him insane – he died in an asylum.

Had Stephen Barrett been a physician in nineteenth-century Vienna, which side of that controversy would he have taken?  Would results and mere common sense rule, or would he have defended the establishment view and perhaps decried the lack of studies proving that doctors should wash their hands?  Nothing much has changed today.  Establishments in any field always defend what has become indefensible.  Pride, not truth, rules.  Semmelweiss and his detractors are still with us.

 

BARRETT’S “BROAD BRUSH” ATTACKS

The thing that has always struck me the most about Dr. Barrett and quackwatch.org is his seeming absolute acceptance of all conventional medicine and absolute rejection of all natural, alternative medicine.  A quick look at articles on quackwatch.org makes this “broad brush” painting of natural, alternative medicine quite clear.  Barrett is down on:

 

Aromatherapy

Ayurvedic medicine

Bio-identical hormones

Candidiasis diagnosis

Chelation therapy

Chinese medicine

Chiropractic

Craniosacral therapy

Holistic dentistry

Dental mercury toxicity

DHEA

Dietary supplements

GABA

Hair analysis

Growth hormone therapy

Glucosamine sulfate

Homeopathy

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy

Lyme disease diagnosis

Magnetic therapy

Feingold Diet for hyperactivity

Orthomolecular psychiatry

Macrobiotic diets

Low carbohydrate diets

Juicing

Multiple chemical sensitivity diagnosis

Naturopathy

Opposition to Immunizations

Opposition to fluoridation

Opposition to food irradiation

Organic foods

Osteopathy

Electromagnetic pollution from power lines

Reflexology

Vitamin C

And more

 

Practitioners, besides me, that Barrett lists as “Nonrecommended Sources of Health Advice” are a virtual Who’s Who list of natural medicine:

Robert Atkins, MD

Peter Breggin, MD (opponent of drug-oriented psychiatry)

Jeffrey Bland, Ph.D. (leading alternative medicine researcher)

Lorraine Day, MD

Earl Mindell (Pharmacist and Author of The Vitamin Bible)

Gary Null

Memhet Oz, MD (“Dr. Oz”)

Jordan Rubin (Author of The Maker’s Diet)

Lendon Smith, MD

Andrew Weil, MD

Julian Whitaker, MD

James Balch, MD (Co-author of Prescription for Natural Healing)

Russell Blaylock, MD

Stanislaus Burzynski, MD (Burzynski cancer therapy)

Deepak Chopra, MD

Dietrich Klinghardt, MD (Internationally recognized authority on Lyme Disease)

Joseph Mercola, DO (mercola.com)

And scores more (I got tired of reading the list)

Were Dr. Barrett to question the credibility of some of the practitioners on his extensive list, I would frankly be in agreement.  But, believe me, you’re nobody if you’re not on his non-recommended practitioners list!  Even if not specifically labeled “quack” or “quackery,” aspersion is cast on all natural medicine practices and practitioners.  Thus, I recognize I am in great company being on his non-recommended list, or as a former pastor told me early in my career, the first time a newspaper did a “hit piece” on me:

You’re nobody until somebody hates you.

 

CONCLUSION        

Based on the above observations, I am forced to conclude that Stephen Barrett, MD possesses a fanatical devotion to dismissing and marginalizing any healthcare view that challenges or competes with conventional medicine.  No matter what practice or practitioner he discusses, the conclusion is pretty much the same – they are different from conventional medicine, and therefore they are false and to be avoided.

Natural, alternative medicine exists because of the abominable failures of conventional medicine, particularly in dealing with chronic disease, and its unprecedented rate of iatrogenesis.  Non-conventional healthcare is far from perfect, but it is an open forum that encourages discovery and innovation rather than suppression.  Conventional, establishment medicine, while necessary for certain health issues, can no longer claim the mantle of the exclusive method of health care.  It is philosophically bankrupt, captive to the chemical drug industry.  It is truly a “license to kill” and Stephen Barrett, MD is one of this failed system’s greatest cheerleaders.

–Monte Kline, Ph.D.

Failure of Conventional Cancer Treatment

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

The Health Freedom Alliance today published an extremely important and informative article (Click Here to Read) on what I have been preaching the past 35+ years:  Conventional cancer “treatment” — especially radiation and chemotherapy — not only don’t work, but are typically counterproductive to overall health.  In my experience most conventional cancer patients, except those who also aggressively build up their health with an extensive natural medicine program, die of their treatment, rather than their cancer.  Cancer is a multi-billion dollar industry that majors on the “cut, burn, and poison” approach, not because these modalities are so effective, but because they are so financially profitable.   That also explains why conventional medicine and the government practice a fascist suppression of the many effective natural approaches to cancer, literally hounding proponents to death in some cases.  Most questions in life really are answered by the famous phrase, “Follow the money.”

As a victim of surgery and radiation for my cancer — now 40 years ago come September — I am hardly a casual observer.  My health was destroyed by conventional cancer treatment and restored by natural medicine approaches, which ultimately launched me into my career as a natural medicine practitioner.   The best approach to cancer, like every other health problem, is prevention.  But if you do find yourself dealing with cancer, please don’t believe everything conventional medicine tells you, but check out the alternatives.  Your life depends on it.

— Monte Kline

Is the “Anti-Nutrient” Destroying Your Health?

Wednesday, March 19th, 2014
3 Sisters Barclay Cropped
Pacific Health Center Newsletter
March 2014
Issue #11
Dear Monte,

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT:  My Help Yourself to Better Health radio program is moving from Saturday to mid-week to the  considerably larger audience at that time.  It will be on twice per month, always at 2 PM on Thursdays, except for our first mid-week program, which will be on a Wednesday.  This monthly E-Newsletter will update the schedule.  Currently it is:

Wednesday, March 26th 2 PM
Thursday, April 10th & 24th, 2 PM
Thursday, May 8th & 22nd, 2 PM
Thursday, June 12th & 26th, 2 PM

Though the program is primarily designed to introduce potential new clients to PHC, the ZYTO testing, and the HCG Weight Loss Program, there’s lots of information plus money-saving offers for existing clients and customers as well, so I hope you’re able to join us.  Listen on your computer from anywhere at kpdq.com (or if you’re in NW Oregon/SW Washington on the radio at 93.9 FM.

— Monte Kline

Back to the Basics — Part II

In last month’s E-Newsletter I noted that I sometimes fail to emphasize basic principles of health with our clients — things that I just take for granted, based on my personal experience, but that often don’t  necessarily become habits with our clients. Last month I emphasized my #1 Basic Ingredient of Health — drinking pure water, preferably distilled (and some of our clients wisely took advantage of the $100 off sale on the Waterwise 8800 distiller to implement this principle).

This month I want to focus on one of the most basic health ingredients diet-wise — avoiding refined sugar.  By “refined sugar” I am referring to white sugar, brown sugar, so-called “raw sugar,” turbinado sugar, dextrose, fructose, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, corn sweeteners, maltose, and lactose. In the 1800’s Americans consumed less than 10 pounds of refined sugar per year per person.  Today it’s over 150 pounds per capita.

THE “ANTI-NUTIENT”

By definition, what makes a sugar refined is that is was isolated from the natural food it was originally found in.  Usually that “parent” food crop is rich in the nutrients necessary to properly metabolize the sugar content.  For example, whole sugar cane has B-vitamins and minerals necessary to properly metabolize the sugar, but when you refine it into white sugar, no beneficial nutrients remain.  The sugar still needs those nutrients to be metabolized, so it “steals” them from elsewhere in the body, making refined sugar an anti-nutrient — that is, something that not only adds no nutrition to the body, but that actually depletes the body of the nutrients it has.  Not good!

SUGAR-CAUSED HEALTH PROBLEMS

Nancy Appleton, Ph.D. in her book, Lick the Sugar Habit, lists “59 Reasons Why Sugar Ruins Your Health.”  Here are some of them:

Suppresses immune system
Causes hyperactivity, anxiety, difficulty concentrating in children
Can raise triglycerides and cholesterol
Can cause kidney damage
Reduces HDL and raises LDL liporoteins
Causes mineral deficiencies (magnesium, chromium, etc.)
Weakens eyesight
Can produce acid stomach
Causes premature aging
Can lead to alcoholism
Contributes to obesity
Can cause or aggravate Crohn’s Disease, ulcers, gastritis
Can cause asthma
Linked to Candida albicans yeast problems
Can cause gallstones, heart disease, MS, appendicitis, hemorrhoids
Contributes to osteoporosis
Can increase blood pressure
Can cause cataracts
Can cause migraines
Can cause food allergies

HEALTHY SUGARS

“Healthy sugars,” though not an oxymoron in my view, is nevertheless a relative term.  There are no sugars you should just go “hog wild” on — even the “healthy” sugars should be used sparingly.  Almost 40 years after writing my first book on nutrition and over 30 years since writing
The Junk Food Withdrawal Manual, my favorite healthy sugars are still raw, unfiltered honey and blackstrap molasses.  But if you have a “problem” with sugars, such as low blood sugar, diabetes, candidiasis, etc., the honey or molasses will still aggravate your problem, so beware.

Raw, unfiltered honey has been praised for thousands of years for its health properties.  Pythagorus lived exclusively on a diet of honey and wholegrain bread, to which he accredited living to age 90.  Apollonium, one of Pythagoras’ disciples lived to be 130 on the same diet.  Hippocrates, the father of medicine, prescribed honey to those who wished to live long.  He did — he died at age 109!.  Solomon balanced the use and overuse of honey this way in Proverbs:

My son, eat honey for it is good . . .(Prov. 24:13a)

If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you have your fill of it and vomit it.  (Prov. 25:16)

It is not good to eat much honey . . . (Prov. 25:27a)

Honey has enzymes and trace amounts of various nutrients that somehow have special properties observed but not totally explained.

Blackstrap molasses is where the nutrients go in refined sugar cane into refined sugars.  It is a good source of calcium, magnesium, iron and other nutrients, though its usages are much more limited than honey.

Again, a lot of people for various health reasons, will not be able to use either unrefined honey or blackstrap molasses.  In these cases I recommend sweeteners like Xylitol and Stevia.   Xylitol is found in the fibers of fruits and vegetables, though it is commercially derived from hardwood trees.  It has a third less calories than refined sugar, actually fights dental decay, and is also used for ear infections.

Stevia rebaudiana, commonly known as Sweetleaf, is an herb grown in subtropical areas of North and South America.  It has virtually no effect on blood sugar and is up to 300 times sweeter than refined sugar.

CONCLUSION

Generally the ideal way to get your “sugars” is the way God made it, as part of a whole food, such as the natural sweetness in fruits and vegetables.  But, where you do need an actual sweetener, use it very sparingly and use one of the healthier sweeteners described.  Your health will thank you.

In This Issue
Back to the Basics–II
E-Books on Digestive Problems
Basic 3 Pack Special
Quick Links

3 New E-Books on Digestive Problems
Leah Kline, has just published 3 new E-Books (titles recently updated) on digestive issues you will find helpful:
 

 

Peaceful Excursions: 3 Secrets to Travel with IBS and Other Digestive Disorders
In this quick read, learn 3 secrets to help you manage your digestive problems so you can travel.  Whether you want to become a world traveler or just be able to visit your kids or grandkids for Christmas, this book’s basic information can help you prepare and have the best trip possible.
Introductory Price:  99 cents

Internal Wellness:  4 Keys to Healing IBS Naturally 
Learn the 4 keys to healing your digestive problems naturally without drugs.  Get your life back by dealing with the root cause of why your gut is bothering you. Stop just managing your digestive symptoms and get down to the root cause of why you have those problems in the first place.    Introductory Price:  99 cents

Truly Gluten Free: 25 Low Carb Recipes for  IBS and Other Digestive Issues
This book is a brief introduction to low carb eating for the sensitive gut and includes 25 recipes from breakfasts to dinners.  Most digestive symptoms result from food sensitivities, especially dairy and grains.
Introductory Price:  99 cents

These titles are available at the Amazon Kindle Store for a Special Introductory Price of 99 cents each at the following link:

 

After reading, please leave feedback at Amazon.  Thanks!

Simplify Taking Vitamins with the . . .

Basic 3 Pack
If you’re currently getting the benefit of a custom-designed nutritional supplement program with our ZYTO testing, this offer is not for you.  But if you’re not currently being tested, have never been tested, or have a family member who hasn’t, this is an excellent, inexpensive way to have a basic nutritional supplement program featuring the highest quality products.

We call it the Basic 3 Pack:

  • 3 Basic nutritional supplements appropriate for almost anyone
  • A 2 month supply automatically shipped to you bi-monthly
  • A 29% savings compared to the individual prices

The products are:

1. Ultra Preventive EZ Swallow
(1 — 240 tablet bottle) — Same formula as Ultra Preventive X, the most comprehensive professional-line multi-vitamin around.  Take 2 tablets — 2x/day.
2. Spectramin Chelate

(2 — 90 tablet bottles) — Chelated multi-mineral.  Take 1 tablet — 3x/day
3. Ultrazyme — Our most popular digestive enzyme covering both stomach and small intestine digestion.  Take 1 tablet — 3x/day

When these products increased in price, we didn’t increase the price of the Basic 3 Pack, making this a real steal.  The price will soon have to be raised by $10, but if you sign up now for automatic shipping, we’ll guarantee the current $99.95 price for your first two shipments — a 4 month supply.

To begin your bi-monthly automatic shipping of the Basic 3 Pack, just call us at 800-255-4246. 

Offer Expires: March 31, 2014

Do You Have the #1 Health Ingredient?

Tuesday, February 18th, 2014

Are you listening to my live radio program, Help Yourself to Better Health, on Saturdays?  Remember, the program streams online, so anyone anywhere with a computer can listen, while anyone in NW Oregon or SW Washington can hear the broadcast on their radio.  You can hear it at 11 AM every Saturday on KPDQ 93.9 FM or on your computer at kpdq.com.  So what’s in it for you?

  • Learn about a new health issue every Saturday
  • Save $ on Listener Specials only for the radio audience
  • Call and talk about your health questions

— Monte Kline

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Back to the Basics — Part I

No doubt, one of my biggest mistakes over the years in my practice has been failing to emphasize again and again what I call “the basics.”  The “basics” are all the things I learned over 35 years ago when I first got into health and nutrition.  They’re things that are automatic, that are “givens,” that I don’t give a second thought to.  They’re things that I falsely assume “everybody already knows that,” just because I happen to know that.  The reality, of course, is that most of my clients are a lot newer to this health journey than I am and haven’t necessarily embraced everything I teach about health.  So this month, I want to go back to a “basic” you may have missed along the way.PURE WATER — YOUR #1 HEALTH INGREDIENT

You can live for weeks without food, but only for days without water.  Like the earth itself, your body is mostly water.  The quantity and quality of water you drink has immense implications on your health.  Water is mostly used to cleanse the body, though in warmer weather it also has the function of cooling the body.  That cleansing effect depends on the amount of water you take in and the purity of that water — quantity and quality.

For example, suppose your car is really dirty, and you decide to wash it.   Would you try to wash it with just a cup of water?  That would be an insufficient quantity of water to do the job.  Would you wash it with water from a mud puddle?  That would be water of insufficient quality.   To do a good cleaning job requires water of good quality and quantity — your body is no different.

I usually answer the quantity question by simply saying divide your body weight in pounds in two and drink that number of ounces of water per day.  So, if you weigh 128 pounds, for example, you would drink 64 ounces per day — two quarts.

So what are the common water purification methods:?

Boiling

1. Kills microorganisms, but doesn’t remove dead microorganisms
2. Kills cysts and spores if boiled long enough
3. Concentrates heavy metal and petrochemical toxins in water (due to less volume of water)

Chlorination

1. Kills microorganisms, but doesn’t remove dead microorganisms
2. Possibly kills spores and cysts
3. Does not remove heavy metals or petrochemicals
4. Adds toxic chlorine to water, a known carcinogen

Filters (Reverse Osmosis, Carbon, etc)

1. Unreliable for killing microorganisms, spores, and cysts
2. Does not remove dead microorganisms
3. Limited ability to remove heavy metals and petrochemicals
4. Some can purify sea water for a short period of time
5. Filters may become a breeding ground for bacteria

Ultraviolet Light

 

1. Unreliable for killing microorganisms,

cysts, and spores
2. Does not remove dead microorganisms
3. Does not remove heavy metals or petrochemicalsThere is only one method that does it all, the method I have used and recommended for over 35 years — distillation with post-carbon filtration:

1. Removes chlorine and fluoride
2. Kills microorganisms, cysts, and spores and removes them
2. Removes heavy metals
3. Removes petrochemicals
4. Purifies sea waterDistillation alone fulfills my health objective of getting everything out of water that isn’t water.

DISTILLATION MYTHS

Myths and outright lies about distillation have been promoted both unwittingly by conventional medicine, as well as intentionally by companies selling competing water purification products.  So here are the main ones:

Myth #1 — Distillation removes essential minerals 

Actually there are no “essential minerals” in water.  We get our minerals primarily from food.  For example, it would take 676 glasses of Boston, Massachusetts tap water to get the RDA of calcium or 1848 glasses to get the RDA of magnesium! 

Myth #2 — Distilled water leaches essential minerals 

While distilled water is great for flushing out discarded, unusable minerals from outside the cells (the reason it often reduces arthritic pain), it is physiologically impossible for distilled, or any other kind of water, to remove minerals from inside your cells.Myth #3 — Distilled water doesn’t remove organic chemicals

Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOC’s) are chemicals that boil and a temperature lower than water, and therefore could be condensed in the water vapor from a distiller.  Post-carbon filtration after distillation, as noted above, along with a volatile gas vent on most distillers removes 99% of VOC’s.

Myth #4 — Distilled water is acidic; the body needs “alkaline” water

This particular myth is mostly perpetrated by companies producing various “alkaline water” machines.  The truth is that pure distilled water has a neutral pH of 7.0.  It is true that distilled water exposed to air will react with carbon dioxide which will slightly lower its pH.  However, the pH of water is pretty much irrelevant, given the water immediately combines with acidic saliva and then goes to the stomach which is 100,000 times more acidic that a slightly acidic distilled water.  When alkaline water hits the stomach, the stomach just secretes more hydrochloric acid to to neutralize it.  Some have suggested that a constant infusion of alkaline water will dilute the natural acidity of the digestive tract, resulting in chronic digestive problems.

Four separate peer-reviewed Japanese studies found alkaline water caused pathological changes in heart cell muscles of laboratory animals, increasing the risk of heart attack.  Holistic MD, Dr. David Brownstein, says:

I disagree with the claims made about alkaline water.  The claims about the benefits of drinking alkaline water are made with no supporting scientific evidence.

Another famous holistic MD, Dr. Andrew Weil, notes:

For reasons I don’t understand, any number of myths — some quite extreme — have grown up over the years about distilled water.  As far as acidity goes, distilled water is close to neutral pH and has no effect on the body’s acid/alkaline balance.

WATER & YOUR HEALTH

If you’re not drinking pure water, you will be severely limited in your pursuit of health.  All the right diet and nutritional supplements will fall short without pure water — distilled being the best.  I realized recently that I haven’t been emphasizing this in recent years to the degree I used to.  So, if the truth about water has missed you in your Pacific Health Center experience, consider this article a corrective and take advantage of this month’s special on our most popular distiller — at a price not offered in years!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Best Water Purification at a $100 Savings
If you’re not already drinking distilled water (or if you’re buying distilled water) you really need your own water distiller.  We have sold the Waterwise distillers for over 30 years.  They are of uncompromising quality and effectiveness.  I most often recommend the Waterwise 8800 countertop distiller shown here:
Waterwise 8800

This is the distiller we use at Pacific Health Center.  Just fill the boiling tank with tap water, push the button, and in 3-4 hours you have a 1 gallon carafe full of distilled water that is also post-carbon filtered.

 

The Waterwise 8800 normally sells for $499 + shipping.  Until February 28th, we’re offering it to PHC clients and customers for $399 + $20 shipping ($419 total) drop shipped to your door.  Order online 24/7 at our website at the following link or phone 800-255-4246.

 

Click Here to Order  Waterwise 8800 

 

 

Offer Expires: February 28, 2014

War on Vitamins

Wednesday, December 25th, 2013
The conventional medical/drug establish is out to convince you that taking vitamins is bunk.  Are they really committed to saving you money, or is there another motive, like perhaps knocking out the competition?  It’s interesting that the latest research knocking nutritional supplements always fails to mention the deadly consequences of the prescription drug alternative — prescription drugs, according to several studies, being responsible for 100,000 – 200,000 unnecessary deaths per year in America.  That, of course, doesn’t fit the agenda, so you won’t hear much about it.

NBC NEWS DISTORTED REPORTING
The latest “study” comes from the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research and is supposedly being used by the US Preventive Services Task Force to revise the recommendations for nutritional supplement usage.  NBC News reported the following headline:
“Vitamins Don’t Prevent Heart Disease or Cancer”

This misleading reporting was immediately challenged by Dr. Andrew Saul of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service including the following comments as noted on mercola.com: la.com:

NBC’s supplement-bashing headline article . . . displays an ignorance of clinical nutrition that is difficult to ignore, and, thanks to its media prominence, can’t be . . . Of vitamin supplementation, NBC specifically said that a “very extensive look at the studies that have been done show it may be a waste of time when it comes to preventing the diseases most likely to kill you.”  This “very extensive look” encompassed 24 preselected studies.  It looks like they just possibly may have missed a few . . . “
Dr. Saul went on to list 19 other studies demonstrating strong links between vitamin usage and reduction of heart disease and cancer, such as:


JAMA
2012:  Multivitamin supplements were found to reduce the risk of cancer by 8%
International Journal of Cancer 2011:  A 10 ng/ml increase in vitamin D on your blood test equates to a 15% reduction in colorectal cancer and and 11% reduction in breast cancer incidence.  [Note:  Optimal serum vitamin D levels are 60-80 ng/ml, though many people test below 30 ng/ml.  That’s why PHC has been emphasizing Vitamin D supplementation for several years.]
American Heart Journal 2011:  For every 20 micromole/liter increase in plasma vitamin C, there’s a 9% reduction in mortality from heart disease.  Dr. Saul notes that if everyone took a mere 500 mg of vitamin C per day, which would produce a plasma level of 80 micromoles/liter, and 216,000 lives would be saved annually!
International Journal of Cancer 2011:  Though the false reporting on the study by NBC stated that “Vitamin E does no good at all in preventing cancer or heart disease,” this research found that gamma-tocotrienol, a co-factor of natural vitamin E,
decreases prostate tumor development by 75%!
The point is that studies number in the hundreds, if not the thousands, over many decades showing the efficacy of nutritional supplements. But some agenda-driven, off the wall study, that says “vitamins don’t work” will always get the sensationalistic play in the media.

VITAMINS & HEALTH CARE COSTS

Last week I ran across another fascinating rebuttal to the “vitamins don’t work” thesis — this one based upon savings in health care expenditures based on vitamin usage.  Christopher Shanahan, M.S. and Robert de Lorimier, Ph.D. have published a study entitled “Smart Prevention–Health Care Cost Savings Resulting from the Targeted Use of Dietary Supplements” and subtitled “An Economic Case for Promoting Increased Intake of Key Dietary Supplements as a Means to Combat Unsustainable Health Care Cost Growth in the United States”.

Their study focuses on the beneficial effects of nutritional supplements for coronary heart disease, diabetes-attributed coronary heart disease, age-related macular degeneration and cataracts, and osteoporosis.  Here’s what they concluded from the data:

  • Usage of omega-3 fatty acids on adults over age 55 with diagnosed coronary heart disease would save $2.06 billion annually in hospitalization costs.
  • Usage of folic acid, vitamin B-6, and vitamin B-12 among this same group would save $1.52 billion annually in hospitalization costs.
  • Usage of phytosterol supplements with this group would save $4.23 billion annually in hospitalization costs.
  • Usage of psyllium fiber supplements would save an additional $4.38 billion in avoidable hospitalization costs.
  • If every person over age 55 with age-related eye disease were to take lutein and zeaxanthin supplements, would result in a $3.81 billion savings of health care costs annually.
  • Usage of calcium and vitamin D supplements by women over age 55 diagnosed with osteoporosis would result in a $1.87 billion reduction in health care costs, while similar usage of magnesium supplements would result in a savings of $851 million annually.

Full details of the study are found at www.frost.com.  I know I’m alive and healthy today, after dealing with cancer at age 24, due in large part to 40 years of quality nutritional supplementation.  The moral of the story is to be very wary of what you hear on the news, especially on this subject.  Natural health care methods are a huge threat to the conventional medical/drug establishment, and their propaganda campaign is never-ending.


                                                                  — Monte Kline

The Big “Fat Lie” Exposed

Thursday, November 21st, 2013

For decades conventional medicine and the media have told us that:

Eating saturated fats causes heart disease

But now it’s again been proven that just isn’t so.  In the British Medical Journal Aseem Malhotra, an interventional cardiology specialist registrar at Croydon University Hospital in London:

“The mantra that saturated fat must be removed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease has dominated dietary advice and guidelines for almost four decades. Yet scientific evidence shows that this advice has, paradoxically, increased our cardiovascular risks….

Years ago I wrote about this in our Better Health Update #72, appropriately entitled, “The Big Fat Lie,” which can be accessed at the URL below (always satisfying to see conventional medicine “catch up” with what I’ve taught for decades):

What this is really about the two types of LDL (low-density lipoprotein — the so-called “bad cholesterol” which really isn’t cholesterol, but a transporting agent).  The long and short of it is that reducing saturated fat in your diet only reduces the large particle “Type A” LDL, when the real problem is the small particle “Type B” LDL.  And guess what the key is to reducing this truly bad Type B LDL is:  Reducing carbohydrate consumption — especially the refined sugars and grains.

Saturated fats like butter and unrefined coconut oil actually have a protective effect against heart disease (not to mention being anti-fungal, increasing energy levels, etc.).  Now I guess we finally know why after decades of low fat propaganda, upwards of a million people per year in America die of cardiovascular disease.  The whole article can be read at the link below:

Saturated Fat Not Cause of Heart Disease Article

So what do you do in terms of diet and supplementation to prevent cardiovascular disease?  There are a lot of possibilities, and we would like to help.  Just click on the link below to set up a Free Health Screening Telephone Consultation with me.  I would be happy to make suggestions for your particular situation.

Monte Kline, Clinical Nutritionist

800-255-4246

Bogus Fish Oil Prostate Cancer Study

Sunday, July 14th, 2013

I have repeatedly told readers that whenever there is some outlandish study condemning nutritional supplements or natural health care approaches, the media goes into full “lap dog” mode, dutifully reporting the nonsense without presenting contrary views.  The end objective is always the same — promote dangerous drug-oriented medicine and suppress natural medicine.  Enter this past week’s “study” reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, supposedly “proving” that consuming fish oil supplements increases the risk of prostate cancer.

Based on decades of seeing this kind of junk-attack science peddled to to the unknowing masses, it sounded “fishy” to me from the start.  We just know too many things about the many benefits of good quality fish oil for cardiovascular health, anti-inflammatory purposes, skin problems and more.  Something that is so beneficial for other areas just isn’t going to give people cancer.

The key thing to understand is that this study did not prove that consuming fish oil supplements (or eating fish) causes prostate cancer.  Rather, it was an “association study.”  In other words, it simply looked at men who did and did not have prostate cancer and noted their fish oil consumption.  The problem is it didn’t adjust for variables like:

Quality of the fish oil supplement (most of what people take is junk)

Length of time fish oil was being consumed by prostate cancer patients

Ethnicity

Age

Obesity/Body Mass Index

PSA level

Not factoring these issues into the equation makes the “study” basically meaningless.

I would encourage you to listen to the brief interview by Michael Savage, Ph.D. with a leading prostate cancer specialist, Dr. Anthony D’Amico.  Dr. D’Amico explains why this study is not to be trusted.  Note:  You may not like some of Michael Savage’s views or style, but he does have a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley in Epidemiology and Nutrition and really knows what he’s talking about on most nutrition/natural medicine topics.  This is the link to copy and paste into your browser.  It’s fascinating.

Fish Oil Prostate Cancer Risk Is Fishy Says Michael Savage [Listen]

— Monte Kline, Clinical Nutritionist

 

 

3:1 Odds of Harm for This Diagnostic Test

Monday, February 25th, 2013

Is it really “preventive care” or is it just good marketing?  Most women have been conned into believing that routine mammograms are one of the greatest things ever for preventing breast cancer.  A recent study in The Lancet would seem to disagree.  It found that:

For every life saved by mammograms, 3 women will be overdiagnosed and treated unnecessarily

More specifically, the study found:

  • 99% of those diagnosed with breast cancer by mammography will have surgery
  • 70% of those will receive radiation
  • 70% will receive endocrine therapy
  • 25% will receive toxic chemotherapy

Another study is even worse.  The Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews found the risk increase from mammography was 0.5%, while the risk reduction from dying of breast cancer was only 0.05%.  So, for every woman saved from breast cancer by mammography, 10 healthy women will be unnecessarily treated, including treatments with highly toxic radiation and/or chemotherapy.

It’s one thing if there is a specific reason to do mammography, such as previous cancer incidence or a significant family history.  Routine mamography for all women as a screening tool, however, is nuts, to put it mildly.

So, what do you do to prevent breast cancer?  Joseph Mercola, D.O. suggests a number of “lifestyle choices” that can make a big difference, including:

  • Avoid sugar, especially fructose
  • Optimize vitamin D levels to 70 – 100 ng/ml
  • Limit protein intake
  • Avoid unfermented soy products
  • Exercise regularly
  • Maintain healthy weight (we recommend our wildly successful hCG program)
  • Supplement with omega3 fish oil
  • Use a curcumin supplement
  • Avoid drinking alcohol
  • Avoid electromagnetic fields
  • Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy
  • Avoid char-broiled meats
  • Make sure you’re getting enough iodine

“Preventive care” is often a misnomer for harmful, invasive procedures that ultimately just serve as marketing tools — identifying a “problem” that is either insignificant or will not affect mortality — in order to “solve” said problem with the “product” conventional medicine offers — in this case, surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy.  Real prevention simply does two things:   (1) Get the bad things out of your body that shouldn’t be there, and (2) Put the good things in that should be there — detox, correct eating, and natural remedies.

–Monte Kline

Flu Epidemic — Really?

Wednesday, January 16th, 2013

The Alliance for Natural Health has an outstanding article, Flu “Epidemic” — The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up that I highly recommend reading for the latest on the current flu vaccine danger and ineffectiveness.  Copy and paste:

http://www.anh-usa.org/flu-epidemic-the-numbers-just-do-not-add-up/

— Monte Kline

5 Tips for Avoiding the Flu

Saturday, January 12th, 2013

After years of empty hype about the flu, we finally have a flu season that appears to be significant (though hardly the epidemic by historical standards the media is whipping this into).   So, what should you do?  If you’ve followed our annual flu prevention suggestions, you’re probably in good shape.  If you haven’t, it’s not too late.  Here arefive tips for flu prevention:

1. DON’T GET A FLU SHOT — Over the years I have written about this extensively, as have many other natural health care practitioners.  The reason is simply:  (1) Flu shots aren’t safe, and (2) Flu shots don’t work.  Some people’s body’s just can’t handle being injected with a bunch of germs, so it’s possible for some to have serious reactions, one of the worst being Guillain-Barre Syndrome (See Better Health Update #61 “Flu Shots — Yes or No?” at:  http://www.pacifichealthcenter.com/blog/?page_id=119).  Some have allergic reaction problems, particularly in cases of chicken or egg allergy.  All viral vaccines contain trace amounts of leukemia virus and other cancer causing viruses.  Flu vaccines usually contain mercury preservatives and aluminum adjuvants.  When it comes to effectiveness, various studies have shown virtually no difference in flu incidence in the vaccinated versus unvaccinated population.  For example, a Dutch study, noted in my Better Health Update, found 50% of the vaccinated population of a home for the elderly got the flu compared to 48% of the non-vaccinated population.  Ironically, the elderly are generally the most vulnerable to flu shot reactions while they are also the group conventional medicine urges the most to get flu shots.

2. DO PRACTICE SANITATION — This is one area where I agree with conventional medicine.  Wash your hands lots, but don’t use anti-bacterial soaps which can compromise your immune system.  I make it a practice to not touch door knobs in public restroom by using a paper towel to open the door, given half the people don’t wash their hands after using the toilet and then touching the door. Think about the stuff you’re touching, and who else may have touched it.  By the way, paper money is probably one of the filthiest, germ-laden things you can touch, so again, wash your hands a lot if you have to have contact with it.

3. AVOID CONFINED CONTACT — Much of the flu and other infectious diseases are spread in the winter because of breathing recirculated air.  Airplanes are probably the worst and likely comprise one of the main ways these flu outbreaks spread around the country and around the world.  If your immune system is fragile for any reason, I would avoid being with groups of people, particularly in confined air space.  A little ventilation can really help, so go out of your way to regularly get some fresh outdoor air.

4. STRENGTHEN YOUR IMMUNE SYSTEM — The most important thing I can tell you is to focus on strengthening your immune system.  Build up your health, and it’s highly unlikely that you will get sick.  So how?  First of all, don’t eat junk.  Nothing suppresses your immune system like eating refined sugar.  Second, take vitamin C, from 3000 – 6000 mg/day (I take over 3000 mg/day just for normal maintenance).  Third, take an L-Lysine amino acid supplement to strengthen your connective tissue and thus prevent infectious invasion.  Fourth, take 4000 – 5000 units of Vitamin D-3 daily.  It takes that much to get most people into the optimal range on their blood tests.  The deficiency of vitamin D in the winter is perhaps the main reason we get colds and flu primarily at this time of the year.

5. TAKE A FLU PREVENTION HOMEOPATHIC REMEDY — For many years we have encouraged our clients and customer to take a flu prevention homeopathic once/week from October through April.  I haven’t heard of any of them getting the flu who were doing this in recent years.  By the way, the same homeopathic remedy can be used if you actually have the flu (wherein you would take it 3 times per day) or if you were required to get a flu shot (e. g. nurses, etc.) and need to use this to detoxify, wherein you would use it once/day for a couple weeks after getting the shot).  Our Flu Prevention Special containing these remedies is still available at (copy and paste URL):

http://www.pacifichealthcenter.com/shop/product-list.php?Special_Offers-pg1-cid34.html

In spite of the media hysteria, don’t worry about this (that further suppresses your immune system).  Just do these steps of prevention and the odds are greatly in your favor for avoiding flu problems.

— Monte Kline

 

 



home | philosophy | monte kline | testimonials | webinar | screening | stress | store | news | contact us

Pacific Health Center and the Pacific Health Balancing Program™
220 S. Pine, Suite 109, PO Box 1066 Sisters, OR 97759
5933 NE Win Sivers Dr., Suite 248, Portland, Oregon 97220
Tel 800-255-4246 • Fax  541-549-1315